Skip to main content

The Oscar nominated documentary "The Gatekeepers" interviews all six living former Shen Bet Chiefs.  Shen Bet, for those who don't know, is sort of like Israel's version of the FBI and Secret Service.

One of the former Chiefs, Avraham Shalom, made a surprising and controversial comparison to Israel's occupation of the West Bank:

We are making the lives of millions unbearable, into prolonged human suffering, [and] it kills me,” Carmi Gillon says in the film. “[We’ve become] a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II," adds Avraham Shalom.
Do I think Israel and Nazi Germany are equivalent?  No of course not.  Not even close.   However, Israel is, unfortunately, on that continuum of regimes that show a clear disregard for the human rights of a persecuted ethnicity.

Now what makes this statement even more intriguing is Shalom experienced the brutality of the Nazis firsthand:

And, by the way, Avraham Shalom was a young kid in Vienna in the 1930s. He didn’t know that he’s a Jew. He was forced to go to school after the Kristallnacht. He was almost beaten to death by his classmates. He felt firsthand what it means to be a Jew under a racist regime. And when he compares that, he compares the Israeli occupation to the Germans, that—like how the Germans treated the Poles, the Czechs, the Dutch, he knows what he speaks about. And I think that his worry is something that had resonance in me, as well, about what—where will it lead, the occupation—I mean, if it will continue like that.

Weekly demonstration in west bank village of kfer qaddum, 25.1.2013

Israelis have had a more favorable opinion of the settlement movement and the occupation in recent years.  Even on the Left Israelis have warmed up to the settlers.  Recently the Labor Party nominated Shelly Yachimovich, who has cozied up to the settler movement, over the more anti-settler Amir Peretz.  

Israelis have in some respect convinced themselves that they will be able to keep large parts if not all of the West Bank far into the foreseeable future.  All the while the American public and political establishment for the most part has remained silent and has been unwilling to show tough love towards Israel.

Hopefully "The Gatekeepers" can wake people up.  Abu Mazen won't be around forever.  If Israel doesn't come to their senses soon they could be facing another Arafat.  It has been said the Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  If things don't change soon the same might be said about Israel...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  As a fervent supporter of Israel and strong critic (14+ / 0-)

    of Hamas and other Palestinian organizations, I have to say, I agree.

    Israel wasn't being called the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany, only that occupation brutalizes not only the occupied but the occupiers as well.

    Israel has fallen far from the ideals of the nation that was founded in 1948.  It has embraced an "all or nothing" solution that would have been destructive to its survival had it been in place in 1948.  Israel earned its place at the world's table as a nation worthy of respect and existence by its willingness to absorb as citizens the people in the lands they captured as a result of conflict.

    They forgot this lesson in 1967 and embarked on the destructive settlement policy which has only been a source of conflict and anguish.  Continuing on with this policy despite a growing world chorus against it, is the action of the deluded or the self-destructive.  It in many ways it is very similar to the Bush policies in Iraq. “Learn nothing, just keep putting in troops.  Everything will work out in the end.”

    I believe Arial Sharon, (a man I loathed for many reasons) had come to this conclusion and was prepared to withdraw from the West Bank in much the same way as he had done in Gaza.  It is regretful, if so, that he was struck down before the withdrawal could occur.

    Hopefully, Israeli leadership will realize the settlement option is in the end senseless.  It is a betrayal to the settlers, who have been conned into believing they will have homes in the West Bank forever, which is an impossibility.  It is a betrayal to the people of Israel proper, who must spend millions each year protecting lands that aren't Israeli.  It is a provocation to Palestinians, many - it may dare be said, most - would have accepted Israel as a neighbour and partner, had they not grown up only knowing them as an occupier.

    The settlements are in fact colonies in foreign lands.  And like all colonies, they are doomed to fail and be withdrawn.  Hopefully this will occur peacefully; most likely it will be as a result of war, with untold death and destruction.  In either case, their days are numbered by the inevitable force of reality.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:26:04 PM PST

  •  ah yes, it's the old ' Hey--a holocaust survivor (5+ / 6-)

    compared Israel to Hitler's regime--therefore Israel is kinda like the Nazis' trick.

    with the 'but I don't REALLY think Israel is a bunch of Nazis!!' disclaimer.

    Yes, you do.  Or you wouldn't have posted it.

    Let the record show that the diarist associates Israel with Nazi Germany (but pretends not to) because a Token Holocaust Survivor™  said so.

    •  Why do you sh!t on Avraham Shalom? (13+ / 0-)

      Your kind of jokes

      Token Holocaust Survivor™
      are exactly the kind of jokes the oppressor would make about the oppressed. You show no respect for Shalom, but it does not help your cause.

      Israel is colonizing and humiliating (and terrorizing) the Palestinians. Eventually there will be consequences. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:51:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you show no respect for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, Hey338Too

        victims of the actual holocaust by supporting a false (and quite sick) equivalence.

        Shalom, and 13million other people, endured their own private hell.  If he wants to go and draw contrived links between Nazi polices and an overzealous Israeli right, that's his prerogative, but he is wrong to do so.

        colonizing (and humiliating) is awful, but it is not the same as systematic and rapid extermination.  One has zero to do with the other.  And the trick of invoking a Real Live Holocaust Survivor (note the 'joke' again--of course it's not a joke but irony which you clearly can't detect), is pretty poor.

      •  also that quote had nothing to do with Shalom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        himself but with the diarist's use of a survivor to attempt to prove an invalid point.

        Although I stand by my assertion that his equivalency is 100% wrong.

      •  History does bend towards justice (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bevenro, livosh1, Hey338Too

        That's why Israel exists and is a strong nation after 2500 years of persecution and oppression of the Jewish People.

        Thanks for pointing that out.

        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

        by volleyboy1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 04:02:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The topic is the persecution of the Palestinians. (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks for trying to reframe the entire conversation though.  :(

          Fail.

        •  Israel was founded in 1948 (0+ / 0-)

          #history

          •  Israel is a lot older than that... (0+ / 0-)

            Remember Israel existed long before it's present incarnation which was indeed founded in 1948.

            #historylearnit

            It is quite just that the Jewish people should once again have a homeland in their ancestoral lands.

            After 2500 years of brutal oppression and persecution (give or take) there is once again a Jewish Homeland. Indeed the arc of history has bent towards justice.

            Now... please remind me, when was there ever a nation of Palestine? Can you please cite the dates and territory it existed in.

            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

            by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 01:50:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Palestinians are descended from the Hebrews also (0+ / 0-)

              #facts

              They are just as entitled to that land.  So to answer your question 2500 years ago.

              •  Wait.. so are you saying that the Palestinians are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too

                really Jews? You might want to tell them that as I don't think they know.

                No one ever said there shouldn't be a Palestinian State btw, just that there should be an Israel and Jewish State and that the arc of history bends towards justice... which is, the creation of Israel and a Jewish State.

                But my question was a very simple one - straight to the point and has an easy yes or no question. Let's try it again shall we:

                Please remind me, when was there ever a nation of Palestine? Can you please cite the dates and territory it existed in.

                "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:00:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Never said Jews, I said Hebrews (0+ / 0-)

                  Jew and Hebrew are not synonymous.

                  And most Palestinians may or may not know this, but they are genetically similar to the Jewish people.  #science
                  http://features.beliefnet.com/...

                  By your logic if the Palestinians decide to merely name their country Judea and Samaria instead of Palestine then their claim would be legitimate.  That seems kind of arbitrary and superficial.

                  •  Whoops... but no.. . (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hey338Too

                    You say:

                    Jew and Hebrew are not synonymous.
                    Ummm, yes.. they are. The Jewish people in ancient times were known as "the Hebrews". Hebrew is the ancient language of the Jewish people and it commonly was used even thousands of years as a synonym for "Jews".

                    SO.. while some Palestinians are descendents of the Hebrew peoples that populated the area, most are not. But even if they were it still is irrelevant as they are NOT part of the Jewish people. Were they, a separate people there would have been a nation of Palestine would there not?

                    then you go to this:

                    By your logic if the Palestinians decide to merely name their country Judea and Samaria instead of Palestine then their claim would be legitimate.  That seems kind of arbitrary and superficial.
                    Wrong on a few different levels. Let's look at those levels:

                    1. You make an assumption in this sentence that I don't think the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a part of the land, but, that is not true. I very much believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a part of the land.

                    2. So, Israel is just the name of a nation and that is why you think I say that it legitimizes itself? Really? That is very uninformed view. Israel was a nation created by the Jewish people in ancient times and carried over throughout the years of persecution and oppression as a synonym for Jewish People. The term "People of Israel" refers to Jews.

                    Now, the Palestinians some of whom are descended from the original Jewish people simply would not name their nation Judea and Samaria, because those are the ancient names for Jewish territory. So it's kind of silly to even make that statement.

                    SO again... Please remind me of when there was ever an independent nation of Palestine, and what territory it occupied. Can you do that?

                    It seems you can't since you seem to be claiming that Palestinians and Jews are one in the same and that the Palestinians are the descendents of the ancient Jews.

                    "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                    by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:09:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  First of all what you are saying is not true (0+ / 0-)
                      SO.. while some Palestinians are descendents of the Hebrew peoples that populated the area, most are not
                      Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool (Nebel et al. 2000). Of those Palestinian chromosomes, approximately one-third formed a group of very closely related haplotypes that were only rarely found in Jews. Altogether, the findings indicated a remarkable degree of genetic continuity in both Jews and Arabs, despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews.
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

                      Now please present to me this mythical study that says most are not.

                      You say the Jewish People in ancient times were known as Hebrews.  Well based on scientific analysis the same can be said of Palestinians.  Scientifically Palestinians thousands of years ago were known as Hebrews.

                      Israel was a nation created by the Jewish people in ancient times and carried over throughout the years of persecution and oppression as a synonym for Jewish People. The term "People of Israel" refers to Jews.
                      Actually Israel was created by the Hebrews who were polytheists until the Babylonian exile.  During this period the Yahwehists (monotheists) began dominating Hebrew theological thought.  Before that the Yahwehists were a very small sect among the Hebrews.  By the time they returned they were basically under Persian rule then Roman rule with some brief periods of autonomy sprinkled throughout.

                      So you would be incorrect when you say Israel was created by the Jews.  It was created by polytheists whose religion eventually died out.  Their descendents became the Jews and eventually the Palestinians.

                      So while the "People of Israel" is commonly referred to Jews exclusively, historically and scientifically that is inaccurate.

                      •  that's a simplistic view of things... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                        most people who pay attention to this sort of thing are well aware of the genetic (and other) similarities (you may also include linguistic similarities--both Hebrew and Arabic are linguistically similar to Akkadian, for example).

                        But 'Hebrews' and 'Israelites' are a tribal identity.  As with other tribal identies--such as the Canaanites or Amorites, there is obviously a question as to self-identity at the time--after all, we're using late Iron Age texts to try to piece together Late Bronze/Early Iron identities, so that is obviously fraught--and you're not always going to have genetic/archaeological/historical/linguistic/evidence line up.

                        But ethnic identities do ultimately develop, and the term Hebrew is clearly identified with the Israelite/Jewish population (Palestine, or Palestinian, is known at least from the period, and (I didn't realize this next bit--but apparently there are poorly defined geographic references as early as the 12th cent. BC in Egyptian and Assyrian texts)

                        My point is this:  VB has never denied that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, and a state, as does Israel.  But there are lots of legitimate historical reasons for assigning land to each group simply because each group has, for all intents and purposes, always been there.  (by always I mean more than 2,000 years)

                        And while there is always intermixing between groups--these things are fluid--you're really not making any case by asserting that somehow the People of Israel aren't Jewish, or that the Palestinians and Israelis are the same people, or whatever.  No tribal identity is 100% airtight, of course--but they are still accepted as legitimate.  Your framing diminishes both Palestinians AND Jews.

                      •  What bevenro said and...... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        You said:

                        You say the Jewish People in ancient times were known as Hebrews.  Well based on scientific analysis the same can be said of Palestinians.
                        So are you then asserting that there was a nation of "Palestine"? Can you tell us about that nation. When it existed and what territory it was comprised of?

                        And while we are at it... who then were the people known as Palestinians? Were they occupants of the nation of Palestine?

                        Actually Israel was created by the Hebrews who were polytheists until the Babylonian exile.
                        While I do understand that your whole point here is to show that Jews are not indigenous to Israel or that area and that really the people currently known as Palestinians are, that simple historical fiction will not fly here.  

                        As bevenro succinctly explained religions evolve and take on different traditions from their original base. Look at Christianity or Islam. Both developed different paths and offshoot sects. However, the original Hebrews WERE associated and became the Jewish people.

                        When one talks about "Hebrew" people they mean one group of people and one group of people only; that would be the Jews. Despite your attempt to change that, that my friend, is reality.

                        The original kingdoms of Israel were indeed created by the Jewish People, as were the dual kingdoms of Israel and Judea.

                        Their descendents became the Jews and eventually the Palestinians.
                        And this quote betrays your point, that you are trying to establish that the Jews of today are NOT indigenous to the Land of Israel and that the real indigenous natives are the people now known as Palestinians.

                        Sorry but...

                        So while the "People of Israel" is commonly referred to Jews exclusively, historically and scientifically that is inaccurate.
                        No. But nice try. This is an old trick to delegitimize the Jewish claim to Israel. I'm surprised you pulled that one out here.

                        So again and I keep asking this but, you just don't want to seem to answer...

                        SO again... Please remind me of when there was ever an independent nation of Palestine, and what territory it occupied. Can you do that?

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 10:48:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You seem to have trouble understanding the fact (0+ / 0-)

                          that Juadaism didn't exist until sometime during the 6th century B.C.

                          And like I said whatever you call your country is irrelevant.  I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make by saying there has never been a Palestine.  You are pulling your argument out ofthe Newt Gingrich playbook, and not surprisingly making very little sense.  I'm not going to fight your straw men.

                          And yes many of the descendents of the Hebrews became Jewish, in addition many of their descendents later became Christian and Muslim.  

                          Point is the Jewish people are not the only rightful heirs of the Hebrew people.  Palestinians are their heirs as well.

                          •  Say what? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too
                            You seem to have trouble understanding the fact that Juadaism didn't exist until sometime during the 6th century B.C.
                            Really now? You going to stick with that one?
                            And like I said whatever you call your country is irrelevant.

                            Actually, I call my country America or more formally, The United States of America.

                            I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make by saying there has never been a Palestine.
                            My point is that history does support that there was a nation called Israel, the Nation of Israel was a Jewish State, and since it was destroyed the Jewish people around the world have faced 2,500 years of persecution and oppression... SO when people talking about "arc of history" bending towards justice here mention the Palestinians, they really should be mentioning the Jews since... They were the ones wronged in ancient times.

                            There was NO ancient state of Palestine and honestly the people there who were not Jews are a conglomeration of those people who traveled through the area and either settled, or were brought there against their own will. Of course some of those people are also descendents of Jews forced to convert during the Caliphate.

                            You are pulling your argument out ofthe Newt Gingrich playbook, and not surprisingly making very little sense.  I'm not going to fight your straw men.
                            LOL, I am not pulling a "page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook" because of two things. First of all, I believe the Palestinians ARE a people. I believe there is enough history behind the Arab inhabitants of the area between the Jordan and the Med. that justifies that there has developed a separate culture of people that now call themselves Palestinian. Unlike Newt and his friends, I don't believe that Palestinians are a new people. I think they have a legitimate claim on part of the land. You don't seem to get that.

                            If anyone is trying to play the "Newt card" it is you, in claiming that the Palestinians are really just the descendents of Jews. You deny the Jewish people our heritage.

                            This is a great fail:

                            And yes many of the descendents of the Hebrews became Jewish, in addition many of their descendents later became Christian and Muslim.  
                            The overwhelmingly great majority of descendents of the Hebrews became Jews. Only through forced conversions and persecutions can the Christian and Muslims claim to share descent. That is the truth, not the pseudo science and simplistic conclusions of those who would deny the Jewish connection to the land.
                            Point is the Jewish people are not the only rightful heirs of the Hebrew people.  Palestinians are their heirs as well.
                            And your point is wrong. The Palestinians are not the heirs to the Hebrew People, they are however, through culture and history heirs to part of the land. Stop trying to make this something it is not.

                            You see, I believe the Palestinians SHOULD have a State in the land between the Jordan and Med. I also believe that the Jews should have a State between the Jordan and the Med. I believe in my heart that there cannot and should not be one State for these two different people. I don't think it would ever work for either group.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:14:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Really now? You going to stick with that one?" (0+ / 0-)

                            That is historical fact.  You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

                            The overwhelmingly great majority of descendents of the Hebrews became Jews. Only through forced conversions and persecutions can the Christian and Muslims claim to share descent.
                            So when the Polytheists converted to Judaism during the Babylonian exile that was a legitimate conversion, but converting to Islam or Christianity (i.e. the Palestinians) does not make you an heir to the Hebrews?  Interesting...
                          •  Ummm.... What you think are facts are not (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            But I get that you need to cling to them to maintain your fantasies about the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

                            Judaism traces it's roots to far before the Babylonian exile and the religion is over 1700 years old (at least).  So maybe only your little mythos places them at 600 C.E. BUT that is about that.

                            #historyfactslearnthemknowthemlivethem

                            The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians and the Jews ARE NOT the same people despite your insistence that they are.

                            As for the this comment... Seriously, stop while you are way behind. Just face it, the pseudo-science you may believe simply doesn't bear up to reality.

                            We all get you have an agenda, and that by cherry picking sentences here and there you want to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people. But that crap only flies in that place where the Hard Right, meets with the Hard Left (and all the silliness about "TEH JOOZ" ensues. So, saying that Judaism is only 2500 years old AND by saying Palestinians are really the heirs to the Hebrew people is all fine and good for the non-reality based community but not so much for us who live in the real world.

                            Just sayin'

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:23:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  facts: (0+ / 0-)
                            Both the archaeological evidence and the Biblical texts document tensions between groups comfortable with the worship of Yahweh alongside local deities such as Asherah and Baal and those insistent on worship of Yahweh alone during the monarchal period.[3][4] During the 8th century BCE, worship of Yahweh in Israel stood in competition with many other cults, described by the Yahwist faction collectively as Baals. The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible, written in the 8th century BCE reflect this competition, as in the books of Hosea and Nahum, whose authors lament the "apostasy" of the people of Israel, threatening them with the wrath of God if they do not give up their polytheistic cults.

                            The monotheist faction seems to have gained considerable influence during the 8th century BCE, and by the 7th century BCE, based on the testimony of the Deuteronomistic source, monotheistic worship of Yahweh seems to have become official, reflected in the removal of the image of Asherah from the temple in Jerusalem under Hezekiah (r. 715-686 BCE) so that monotheistic worship of the god of Israel can be argued to have originated during his rule.[5]

                            Hezekiah's successor Manasseh reversed some of these changes, restoring polytheistic worship, and according to 2 Kings 21:16 even persecuting the monotheist faction. Josiah (r. 641-609 BCE) again turned to monolatry. The Book of Deuteronomy as well as the other books ascribed to the Deuteronomist were written during Josiah's rule. The final two decades of the monarchic period, leading up to the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 597 BCE were thus marked by official monolatry of the god of Israel. This had important consequences in the worship of Yahweh as it was practiced in the Babylonian captivity and ultimately for the theology of Second Temple Judaism...

                            The oldest writings of Judaism that survive directly date from the Hellenistic period.
                             This includes Hebrew and Aramaic papyri with biblical fragments such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Greek documents such as the Septuagint. The contact of Israelite and Greek cultures resulted in the development of strict monotheism which recast the national god of Israel in the role of the creator of the universe, corresponding to The One or The All of Hellenistic religion[citation needed]. Other scholars contend that the development of a strict monotheism was the result of cultural diffusion between Persians and Hebrews. While (in practice) dualistic, Zoroastrianism believed in escathological monotheism. Some[who?] suggest that it is not merely coincidence that the Zoroastrianism's model of escathological monotheism and the Deuteronomic historians strictly monotheistic model receive formative articulations during the period after Persia overthrew Babylon.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                            Both Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA
                            genetic pool (Table 3, Figures 4, 5 and 6) that support a
                            common ancient Canaanite origin.
                            http://www.stml.net/...

                            And in the words of Vince Masuka:

                            Thanks for playing

                          •  as a professional archaeologist, I find your (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            wikipedia reliance entertaining :)

                            (and I have worked on Canaanite/Israelite sites, by the way)

                            anyway, no one is arguing that the genetic pool is that dissimilar between Semitic peoples.  VB is simply saying that the terms 'Israel' and 'Hebrews' pertain to a Jewish identity--NOT that there weren't other people on the land considered 'Palestine' by the Greeks.

                            You are arguing something--but I'm not quite sure what?  

                          •  I am not sure where he going with this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            as well... the fact is that Judaism can trace it's roots to close to 2000 B.C.E. NOT 500 B.C.E.

                            I am sort of thinking he is going with the canard that the ancient Jews became the Palestinians (or some such nonsense) and that it is the Palestinians who are the true inheritors of the legacy of the Jews. The old "Jesus was a Palestinian" thing.

                            And you are right... no one says that there are not commonalities in the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. You are also correct that in saying that I am not claiming that there are not legitimate non Jewish heirs to part of the land between the Med. and the Jordan. Just that those people ARE NOT the Hebrews (and Hebrews used as it really means Jews).

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:02:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i think you're right about the diarist's intended (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            point--

                            although it really doesn't make any sense.  I mean, I suppose you can have a whole sociological debate about whether or not ethnic identities are 'real' or not--(I did a seminar on that with respect to the Amorites once) but that's way beside the point anyway...

                          •  Depends on which conotation you are using (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm referring to the ethnicity of the ancient people who lived thousands of years ago.

                            Today their descendents are of multiple ethnicities Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and a community of Arabs who live in the greater Israel region.  And these ethnicities comprise of multiple religions including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.  The oldest being Judaism and the newest being Islam.  Fact of the matter there is no pure Hebrew ethnicity anymore.

                            But yes another connotation of the word Hebrew refers to any Jew.

                          •  Thanking yourself for playing? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            Your Wiki link besides being "The simplistic view of Judaism" betrays both your lack of understanding of Judaism AND history.

                            Sure there were polytheistic cults within the religion just as there were different sects within Christianity and Islam (and still are). There are however traces to the Jewish people and their worship that runs back to at least 1700 B.C.E.

                            Hey Obamalover20122 - how about instead of your continued display of only a cursory knowledge of the subject of Judaism and all this... How about you come clean and just tell us what point you are trying to make, and what you think that P.O.V. will support? OR are you ashamed to talk about that here and hence this sort of torturous circuit of nonsense?

                            What is it that you really wish to say?

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:11:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh btw... did you think we would not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        read your link???

                        I mean there is this comment:

                        In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors.....

                        .... Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia. The present study contributes to the elucidation of the complex demographic history that shaped the present-day genetic landscape in the region.

                        But in any case... Is it a surprise that Mizrachi Jews who stayed in Israel would be related to parts of the population now known as Palestinians? Of course not, I freely grant that local Arab populations would have a relationship to the Mizrachim. They come out of the same pool.

                        However, the Ashkenazim and Sepharadim... are also Jews and also share markers with Mizrachim but NOT with the local Arab Population.

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 11:00:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The data collected by these researchers (0+ / 0-)

                          also found that the Ashkenazi Jews were most closely related to... Palestinian Arabs (see Table 2).

                          •  You did read the analysis of table two didn't you? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            Because that comment does not make it seem like you did.

                            Here let me quote from the report:

                            The three modal haplotypes in the Palestinians and Bedouin were entirely restricted to the two Arab populations. On the other hand, chromosomes with the modal haplotypes of the Jews and of the Muslim Kurds were observed in all the populations except the Bedouin. The three Jewish communities had many additional haplotypes in common with Muslim Kurds (table 3). They shared more haplotypes and chromosomes with Muslim Kurds than with either Palestinians or Bedouin. (vb1 emphasis)
                            However, since the Palestinian people are a conglomeration of many other groups AND the original inhabitants of the area this makes sense.

                            As it does that the Jews would have ties to the Turks and Kurds since they were scattered in various diaspora's throughout history.

                            I am going to suggest that you actually read the report you link to rather than like your diary looking to cherry pick lines here and there to justify your points. You might have seen this:

                            About the Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin

                            Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin are largely nomadic Arab herders, with a tribal organization. They live in all Arab countries, constituting about one tenth of the population (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). The Bedouin population of the Negev desert was found to be most distant from Jews and Muslim Kurds and to be closely related only to Palestinians.
                            which supports that the local population who have become known as Palestinians were a conglomeration of peoples moving through the area that did eventually settle down.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:32:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reading is fundamental (0+ / 0-)

                            In table 2 Ashkenazis are most closely related to Palestinians... not Palestinians are most closely related to Ashkenazis.  Those two statements have two different meanings.

                            Point is they have common ancestors.  And saying the conversion to Judaism from Polytheism still makes them legitimate heirs but not Christianity or Islam from Judaism is silly.

                          •  Nice try.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            Some Palestinians do have common ancestors with the Ashkenaz. And some have common ancestors with the Mizrachim and Sepharadim. No one denies that, Of course they would, as they are Middle Eastern people with a basis in the Fertile Crescent but, to say that the Palestinians are infact the heirs to the Hebrew People and the Kingdoms of Israel is ridiculous to say the least.

                            But congrats, because outside of the very Hard Right or Hard Left no one actually agrees with you.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:55:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  heirs to what??? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            Everyone who lived on a land at some point can stake some historical claim to the land.  Whether or not that is achieved, who knows.  But somehow it seems like you're trying to say that since Judaism evolved from polytheism the ethnicity doesn't exist, unless it's also Palestinian..

                            or something.

                            This discussion is nonsensical and weird.  Anyway, you mention 'Christian' and 'Muslim'--both groups of whom have well over a billion people and many millions of square miles of land.  The Jews had NO land until about 70 years ago...and I agree that the Palestinians have the right to land in the region as well.

                            But the contortions  you're going through to get there--when we are actually all in AGREEMENT that the Palestinians have deep ethno-historical ties to the region--is just...

                            strange.

                    •  This basically means Solomon and David (0+ / 0-)

                      were Polytheists.  Not Jewish

                      •  false dichotomy. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                        Many monotheistic religions have aspects of polytheism throughout (the tetragrammaton YHWH, for example has different aspects of God reflected in the name), and the trinity--even angels)

                        Anyway, we haven't proven that David and Solomon actually existed anyway--although if they did, and Israel existed as a small kingdom, it's probable that it would have been run under a 'state religion' of Judaism.  Even if Judaism were influenced by other religions (e.g. Canaanite--which undoubtedly it was) that doesn't make it any less Jewish.  As you yourself note, these religions evolve.

                      •  No actually it does not. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        Again....

                        SO again... Please remind me of when there was ever an independent nation of Palestine, and what territory it occupied. Can you do that?
                        You keep refusing to address that question. I wonder why that is.

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 10:35:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  You are a guest in my home (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Smoh, WattleBreakfast

      please be respectful when posting in my diary.

      •  lift the HR. (5+ / 0-)

        your diary is insulting and offensive--and as per rules of this site it is also anti-Semitic.  (see equating Israel w/Nazi Germany)

      •  i will retract my criticism slightly-- (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ubertar, volleyboy1, JNEREBEL

        since you are discussing an acclaimed documentary.

        I think that knee-jerk associations of Israeli policies w/Nazi Germany are rightly bannable around here (and generally anti-Semitic)

        but this isn't quite that egregious, although you clearly seem to support the association to some extent.  Note I didn't HR your diary.

        •  Nothing knee-jerk here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WattleBreakfast

          The diarist is sharing the content of a documentary -- one that will be widely discussed.

          It's unfair to threaten banning because you don't like the topic, or don't accept any real criticism toward Israeli policy.

          The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

          by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:41:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I spend an enormous amount of my time on (0+ / 0-)

            and off-line vehemently criticizing Israeli policy.

            Don't make assumptions about people.

            The diary contains some material that is considered unacceptable on this site.  Not my rules.

            •  You're being kind of a bully (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WattleBreakfast

              and trying to shut down discussion with references to your own family's experience.

              I'm usually offended by Nazi analogies -- they are lazy. But in this case, the diarist is quoting an individual who knows a lot more than I do, and has a legitimate opinion. The diarist's opinion is also legitimate. Worth a debate -- not HRing, which is another form of bullying.

              The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

              by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:23:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  don't think I 'hr'ed anything... (0+ / 0-)

                not sure what you're talking about?

                shutting down discussion?  not sure what that's all about, but...

                Anyway, I offer a longer response at the end of the thread.  If that doesn't clarify for you where I stand on things, I'll just leave it at that.

    •  if you really don't understand how offensive your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alain2112, WattleBreakfast

      use of the word "token"  combined with "holocaust survivor", i suggest you watch the wwII series on pbs with the graphically disturbing images of bergen-belsen, auschwitz or any of the other death camps.

      and, fyi, ther ARE no "tokens" for survivors, except perhaps, the tattoos on their forearms.

      your comment is beyond decent and acceptible.  you need to apologize now and then you need to do some serious soul-searching to try to understand where such a vile comment originated from within you.

      hr'd

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 02:06:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take your self righteous and despicable (7+ / 0-)

        comments away from me.

        Why don't you insult my entire ethnic background while you're at it?  Yeah, I know a thing or two about modern Jewish history.  Most of my relatives who didn't get out of Europe no longer exist because of it.

        You know damn well the point of that comment.  It is to illustrate the vileness of using a holocaust survivor to try to draw a false parallel between Israel and the Nazis.  It's just like saying 'well, a black/gay/native American guy/woman said it's ok, so whatever offensive comment follows has an automatic shield)

        It's unacceptable, and it is a cheap shot by the diarist to use it as a cover for their comments--no matter what Shalom may have said in the documentary.

        You know exactly what the comment means.

        •  then it is more disturbing that you chose the word (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, alain2112, WattleBreakfast

          "token" in your comment.

          you made the choice to use the word "token", not i.  i come from the south during the era of segregation, during the time of great racial division.  that word appears to have significant connotations for me in a different manner than it does for you.

          as to the substance of the diarist's post (which, btw, i disagree with the premise but see how he/she followed that line of thinking) - that does not change the offensive use of the word.

          i am deeply sorry about the loss of your family to the devastion brought on by the inhumanity of the nazis - without your clarifying your personal losses, your comment can be read in a very negative light - as i did and am sure others have as well.

          is it not better to enlarge the conversation and debate the merit (or, rather, lack of...) of the diary than use language that can produce reactions opposite of what you intend?

          You know exactly what the comment means.
          and, no, i don't know exactly what the comment means, that is why you got the reaction you did from me.

          i simply ask you this:  isn't it better to explain what you mean rather than using emotionally charged words that produce reactions opposite to your intended meaning?

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 02:53:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  after seeing the Jews = Nazis comparison (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, Hey338Too, livosh1

            dozens--and probably hundreds of times on this site, no, I am honestly fatigued of providing an academic explanation.

            wait...are you saying you objected to the term 'token' rather than this perceived 'mockery' of a holocaust survivor?  Because that I wouldn't have guessed at all.

            •  i objected to both. the use of the word "token" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alain2112, WattleBreakfast

              it is used to denigrate anyone.

              second point:  i just spent days crying watching the pbs documentaries on the camps and those who died and those who survived.

              and while i am not jewish, i am fully aware of the horrors of that time - from the history of wwII with full illustrations of the destruction of that war, the opening of the camps and the pictures of the dead and dying - a book left deliberately where a young child could look and see and cry and question how ANY human being could do those things to another.

              i have close friends who survived by being sent away as small children never to see their families again - i have friends whose parents had those tattoos... so don't lecture me on my reaction to the use of your word.

              oddly enough, we are on the same damned side, yet we fight each other over a poor choice of words?  and while we do that, what happens is that the inhumane ones laugh and slip past us to continue the destruction without check.

              it's time for us to think - ALL of us - to pick which battles are worth fighting and then how to effectively fight those battles.

              as you are fatigued of providing an "academic" explanation, one that i have not seen here because i am not HERE 24/7, i am fatigued at the anger we direct among ourselves - when we should be channeling that anger where it really belongs - at injustice and bigotry and hatred.

              now, i'm off to the barn, so i'm not ignoring any response you might make until later tonite...

              peace - shalom - namaste

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 03:31:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  and you purport to educate me on Auschwitz? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        I will not engage you again, here or elsewhere.

        Good day, sir.

    •  Uprated for unjustified HR's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, JNEREBEL

      The GateKeepers is a very complex movie as is discussed in a headline article at The Times of Israel

      Opponents who depict Israelis as oblivious or hateful won’t find much support for that here. Even some of the documentary’s villains — the Jewish extremists who fomented Rabin’s murder — get their own counterbalance: an image of an ultra-Orthodox Jew with a sign that says “I’m ashamed” soon after the killing.

      Beyond its individual participants, “The Gatekeepers” reflects positively on Israel in another key way, demonstrating the relative transparency and accountability of the establishment.

      As in “The Law in These Parts,” a recent documentary that examined Israel’s legal system in Gaza and the West Bank, “The Gatekeepers” relies on testimony from top officials — men who believe it is their duty to share important information with the public.

      Naturally they have their own biases and agendas, but their willingness to testify in the open suggests good things about their conception of democracy — what even tough-minded intelligence veterans owe their fellow citizens and society.
      To single out the interview of one man to make a point like this is doing exactly what bevenro is claiming.

      I would also say that the diarist is in violation of the HR rule but to be honest the admins. have abandoned all rules concerning HR's so that is what is. They should just do away with those rules because honestly, they have no intention of enforcing them.

      "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

      by volleyboy1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 03:59:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was pissed off when I posted so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too

        I can see why people may have misinterpreted the intent (athough I'm pretty sure that some people just ignored my intent anyway--so go these threads)

        I haven't seen the documentary yet, though.

        •  Ok - then do you think I should pull my uprate? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bevenro, livosh1, Hey338Too

          I happen to think you are right though, but I will respect your wishes.

          Frankly, all this talk about equivalency with the Nazi's is disgusting because while the Occupation may be a number of things there is nothing even comparable in it to what happened during the Nazi period. And despite the hypocritical and frankly mind numbing ignorance displayed by people who would make the claim and use people who were traumatized by the Holocaust to help "prove" their point.. it just isn't true.

          "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

          by volleyboy1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 04:26:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's up to you--you can pull it if you like since (0+ / 0-)

            it won't bring my comment back anyway!

            Diarist obviously doesn't see what he/she is doing here, and the support for that sort of thing around here is aggravating (but expected unfortunately..)

          •  You say that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WattleBreakfast
            And despite the hypocritical and frankly mind numbing ignorance displayed by people who would make the claim and use people who were traumatized by the Holocaust to help "prove" their point.. it just isn't true.
            But the diarist didn't do that -- the former chief depicted in the film did.  Isn't it striking that a man who lived in Germany during WWII and also served in Israel's military would make such a strong and provocative statement?

            The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

            by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:46:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Count my mother as a "token Holocaust survivor" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast, Obamalover20122

      who was one of the few of her extended family to survive.

      How dare you.

      It's not just a zip code, it's an attitude.

      by sboucher on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 04:25:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How is a former Shen Bet Chief (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast

      a "Token Holocaust Survivor"?

      Why not engage this topic instead of shooting the messenger?

      Nazi analogies are always fraught, but the diarist did not make up the quote or the film.

      The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

      by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:37:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  diarist is using it to score points. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        that's blatently obvious--kind of shocked you're not seeing it.

        I have no problem with the fact that Avraham Shalom said it.

        It's interesting that only a few sites like MondoWeiss  (and, of course, DKos) are leading with the

        'Former Shin Bet Leader Compares Israel To Nazi Germany' line.  That should tell you a few things...

  •  Targeting one population for punishment (7+ / 0-)

    in order to keep another, usually much larger, in line is not a novel practice.

    I call it triangulation and compare it to the game of pool in which the cue ball is hit in order to sink the colored balls.

    The strategy is very effective with humans because the observers or witnesses of aggressive and attrocious behavior are glad to be left out ("there but for the grace of God, go I") or pride themselves for being among the select and the people attacked have no clue about what they've done (which accounts for the element of surprise), how they might change or even who's got it in for them.
    I used to object to the designation "innocent victims," but the targets of triangulation are innocent, not in the sense of not being guilty, but in the sense of not knowing why they are being hunted. They're like rabbits caught in a snare, but, presumably, the rabbit is meant to be food.

    Mostly, the victims who survive these attacks do not want to consider that their injury was not the objective -- that they just happened to be a convenient object of deprivation whom others could be counted on not to assist.

    Authority which stands silent in the face of abuse becomes complicit. Under our system of social organization, where the citizens nominally govern and have authority, if we stand silent, we become complicit. And when we become complicit, our authority is undermined. When someone can be beaten in the public square without anyone protesting, the people's credibilty is less.
    Abuse will always happen, but we have to stand up to it.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:31:32 PM PST

  •  5 Broken Cameras (9+ / 0-)

    I would recommend this additional film, a collaboration between a Palestinian and an Israeli as well. It shows the
    reality of how the settlement regime affects the local population, bringing destruction and even death to people who simply want to maintain and protect their traditional way of life.  

  •  note he isn't comparing Israel as genocide (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bisbonian, too many people

    committers like the Nazis

    He says Occupiers. Oppressive occupiers.

    Many on the left, I've seen online, have said Israeli's behavior is just like the Nazis in terms of genocidal treatment of Palestinians so I thought I'd mention that.

    Right wing governments suck.

    •  it's still an unnecessary comparison designed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1, livosh1

      to elicit a certain type of politicized emotion.   There are countless examples of occupations that aren't fraught, as the Nazi comparison is.

      •  I think Shalom used that comparison because (4+ / 0-)

        in that case the Jews - specifically Shalom himself - experienced the Holocaust firsthand.

        •  doesn't make it any less offensive. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          volleyboy1, Hey338Too

          just because it's a Jew who was persecuted by the Nazis who is making the comparison doesn't make it right--and it doesn't give it any more credence on a site like this.

          •  He wasn't saying they were equivalent though (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WattleBreakfast

            That seems to be what you are implying

            •  he can say whatever he chooses. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, volleyboy1

              as far as I know he's not on this site.  And so can you.  But you invoke his comments to make a larger ironic point--and you treat his experience as something of a shield, so it's ok to draw these parallels because Shalom, who actually was IN the camps, does so himself.  He is one person, with one view, and that one view doesn't make Israel/Nazi comparisons any more legitimate.

              People use the Israel/Nazi thing around here for politically ironic purposes--and I intend to call it out every time.

              I also call out the knee-jerk equivalences of the U.S. government and fascism.  It's not fascism, but to call it so garners attention and scores political points.

              In this case the false parallel is far worse because you're talking about a direct and recent human tragedy that affects many people PERSONALLY on this site.

              •  Again we aren't talking about equivalencies (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WattleBreakfast

                I'm not going to fight your strawmen

                I also call out the knee-jerk equivalences of the U.S. government and fascism...

                In this case the false parallel is far worse because you're talking about a direct and recent human tragedy that affects many people PERSONALLY on this site.

                And he was personally affected by the Holocaust, and the very point he is making is that Jewish people were affected by the Holocaust and BECAUSE of that we should be vigilant against human rights violators... even among our own kind.  

                The lessons from the Holocaust weren't necessarily to fight oppression only in extreme cases like the Nazis, but in also less extreme forms like the Likud led government.  Oppression should be criticized vehemently whenever it shows its ugly head.

                You clearly do not understand the lessons from the Holocaust, and if you had any sense you would listen to our elders like Shalom who actually went through that terrible time instead of ignorantly bashing those poor souls.

              •  Do you intend to call out Judy Rudoren (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WattleBreakfast

                in the NY Times as well? She also saw fit to mention Nazi Germany in a story just two days ago about an Israeli soccer team's fans being more than distraught at the idea that muslim players were being recruited.

                Some young men had unfurled a banner at the previous game declaring “Beitar pure forever,” which reminded many here of Nazi Germany’s purging of Jews from athletics in 1933 and prompted statewide discussion about racism on and off the field.

                “People in Israel usually try to locate Beitar Jerusalem as some kind of the more extreme fringe; this is a way to overcome the embarrassment,” said Moshe Zimmermann, a historian at Hebrew University who specializes in sports. “The fact is that the Israeli society on the whole is getting more racist, or at least more ethnocentric, and this is an expression.”

                So is she an antisemite for writing that "many" in Israel were "reminded" of "Nazi Germany's purging of Jews..."?

                BTW, making a false accusations of antisemitism is a bannable offense here.

                The best way to prevent abortions is to arm fetuses.

                by Flyswatterbanjo on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 05:20:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  haven't read it. (0+ / 0-)

                  maybe it is, maybe it ain't.  It's not my job to troll through the media and assess each piece.  I'm busy.

                  anyway, you'll note the admins have indeed denounced the old tried and true Nazi/Israel comparisons here, but please, feel free to sic the admins on me.

          •  I think the victims of the Holocaust (0+ / 0-)

            would prefer that we recognized the behavior of the early Nazi period before it became the behavior of the later Nazi period.

            And wouldn't we all?

            I would say it is our duty to the victims to stand up and speak if we see anything like the early period of the Nazi movement.

            Before the death camps.  Before the gas chambers.

            If we say it is off limits to ever compare any group to the Nazis at any stage, that means we are absolving their behavior until it is too late.

            Now I would also say it is disturbing that Israel is accused of such behavior more than others.  Much I would assume is anti-semitism.

            But I also think much is due to a lot of people seeing Israel skirting so close to that edge when they should know better from personal experience.  Perhaps that is an unfair burden.

            So the question is, how much validity is there to compare one country's actions (and not only Israel) to the ghetto portion of Nazi Germany?

            If we see it, should we say something.  Does it do honor to the victims to say something or does it dishonor them?

            •  the primary problem with your thinking (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too

              is that you are assuming that overly-agressive responses to perceived security threats in Israel (and I certainly agree they are often extreme) are the precursor to a Nazi-like extermination policy.

              Which is nonsense.  See, you say 'let's do this...before the gas chambers.  Before the death camps'.  But that is not the point of the political right's thinking.  That trajectory is completely false.  

              If there were legitimate historical parallels with the Nazis, that would be one thing.  But there is no relationship here--except for political irony.

              •  OK, that is an intelligent argument (0+ / 0-)

                The factors that led to Nazi Germany and those of Israel are very different.

                But that is accepting that only the conditions that led to Nazi Germany can lead to another Nazi type state.

                That has not been proven.

                But I think I made it clear I wasn't specifying Israel personally.

                I was arguing more against the argument that comparisons to Nazi Germany are inherently always awful and false, and disrespectful to the victims.

                And for the reasons I outlined, I think that is a very big mistake.

                I would rather have a country be falsely accused, perhaps check itself, and have someone make a reasoned argument with specifics as to why the comparison is not the same, rather than having your earlier argument which is just saying any comparison to Nazis is insulting to Nazi victims.

                There is little harm in being overly aggressive with respect to the criticism of any nation's behavior, but as you are aware, there is a huge downside to standing by and not saying anything because it's just not polite.

                Would you not agree?

                •  Israel can (and has been) criticized 6 ways (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too

                  'till Sunday  (including by me)

                  in tens of thousands of comments on this site, and everywhere you look.  

                  Many of these comments are effective, and tons of them offer valid criticism.

                  The ones that offer the least validity to their criticism are the Nazi Germany ones.  Why?  Because the link between Israeli-occupied Gaza/WB and Nuremburg-era Germany is so impossibly weak, the only reason to invoke it is for politically ironic purposes.

                  to wit:  'Isn't it ironic that the Jews are turning their own oppression around on another people!  One more step to the gas chambers and the transformation will be complete!'

                  That is THE reason why certain commenters try to compare Israel to Nazi Germany.  Not to raise academic awareness-not to draw interesting parallels--no. It is to paint Israel as Nazis to score political points among the virulently anti-Israel left.  And it works.  Just note the number of recommendations that many such comments receive.

                  And it's interesting (and noteworthy) that--as a shielf for these comments, most people wouldn't DARE to try to pull that stunt unless they  know they have a Jew--and--even better--a Jew who might have been victimized IN NAZI GERMANY ITSELF--to make that point.

                  As a Jew who had my own relatives--many of them--murdered in Nazi-occupied Poland and Lithuania, (albeit before I was born), I find this political ploy to be particularly despicable.

                  If a holocaust victim chooses to draw the parallel--as i've said before, that's their prerogative, although the historical connections are extremely weak (except that it's probably the first and most emotional thing that comes to mind).  But to invoke that sort of thing here to score political points is really quite disturbing.

                  Hope that helps to explain my point of view.

      •  agree. Since it's from an Israeli though (0+ / 0-)

        I give it more of a pass, also because the statement
        explains that the occupation was the common denominator not atrocities or ultimate morality.

        I am concerned though that the diarist and some others wouldn't or didn't see that difference. I have been so burned by anti Jewish stuff on the left (the blurred line between anti Israel or Zionist or Rigth Wing ISraeli Government and Jewish). Also burned by glee on left whenver an Israeli uses the Nazi term, as if to say "see even they think it's apt".

        I like Kos because I can come here and not feel like I'm living in pre 1940s USA vis a vis some attitudes to Jews unlike, say, Huffington Post.

        Just a moment ago on NPR a pro Hagel left leaning caller said "the Jewish lobby what's wrong with that? APEC and all them  control..."

        Doesn't get that it's the Israel lobby not JEWISH lobby. Sure many of most of them are Jews...but most American Jews are not them. (sigh)

        •  I am guessing AIPAC has quite a few (0+ / 0-)

          Christian supporters. Evangelicals can't wait to bring on the second coming of their Jewish legend.

        •  If that is what you took from my diary (0+ / 0-)

          then you did not read it.  I went out of my way to say there wasn't an equivalency.  

          •  I did read it, but will again (0+ / 0-)

            I did say I was concerned that you wouldn't see the difference but not THAT you were not. And I was concerned that OTHERS would not see the difference

            because that is what often happens on the left though rarely on Kos. People equate Israeli behavior with the Nazi and it goes all the way down. People have said Israeli's are committing genoside (purposeful anhilation of an entire people so they no longer exist on the planet).

            So since that view exists on the left I was concerned this diary would feed that.

            •  What you are saying is that we should censor (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WattleBreakfast

              criticism by Isael's security establishment because some idiots might see an equivalence.

              There is always going to be idiots.  You are just trying to make a lame case for censoring harsh criticism of Israel.

              •  you are putting words into my mouth (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bevenro, volleyboy1

                not cool

                don't care about harsh criticism, care about unfair stuff. Israel is fair game but Nazi and Holocaust affected more than Israelis  to be. It's complicated.

                There is a canard on the left that THE JOOOZ have too much power. I saw it in Occupy in Boston...repeatedly...and had to leave. Even Hagel said "the JEWISH lobby" not the Israel lobby (I'm ok with it if he mispoke). It is NOT the "JEWISH lobby". It is like saying "Muslims are extremists".

                70% or more of Jews are Dems.

                Israel Gov is right wing. Just like how our President Bush and his neocons STARTED AN UNJUST WAR in our name--the ISraeli Gov does lots of stuff that does not stand for all the people of Israel or Israel as a country on the whole, necessary, and especially not for all Jews in the world. I am only making a direct analogy.

                There are a ton of comparisons on the left of Israeli treatment of palistinians being like Nazi and the Holocaust. My Arabl aquaintances (they dont' know I'm Jewish) say it all of the time.

                So when we see a diary like this it just fans that flame. Or at least, I react with suspicion that it is meant too.

                I can't be sure but the diary can be construed as coming from a place as "see even an Israeli thinks Israel is like the Nazi's". As if to shore up SOME on the left's point of view. When actually the statement by the official though meant to be incendiary, carefully compares Nazi OCCUPATION of other countries with Israeli Occupation of Palestinian territory. HE does not compare the treatment of Jews by the Nazi to how the Israelis treat Palestinians. BUT there is a contigent on the left that does it, as do many Arabs. And it is not a fair comparison.

                Context matters. So does intent. ISraelis do not have a genocidal intent for Palestinians and usually try to avoid civilian causalites. Like US in Iraq, though, it just is not possible to fight that kind of war without killing civillians and disrupting their lives. Neither war-waging is justified but neither is comparing Israeli's to NAzi vis a vis genocidal treatement or intent (which is what is common on the left)

                I am no Israel apologists for her ACTIONS.

                •  one of my closest friends was complaining about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too

                  the "jewish lobby' being annoying as hell yesterday.  I laughed and said she's right--they are.  She was referring to an AIPAC convention--She's hardly anti-Semitic (and I'll use the term myself sometimes) so I'll give it a pass--it's when people have an anti-Jewish agenda that really gets me.  Then there's the fact that the Israel lobby really contains a bunch of Christian Zionists, etc...but that's another issue altogether...

            •  diarist is well aware of this. The title is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too

              designed to stir the pot.  

          •  you really 'went out of your way' with that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

            title, didn't you?

            Jplanner's comment:

            Also burned by glee on left whenver an Israeli uses the Nazi term, as if to say "see even they think it's apt".

            is 100% accurate, and you've demonstrated it perfectly.

      •  Frankly, it reminds me most of the European (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catesby

        colonization of the New World (new...as if it hadn't already been inhabited). Native Americans resorted to violence to retain their land, but ended up on smaller and smaller reservations. Each act of violence served to further justify their treatment. After all, they were mere savages (or philistines). Eventually, there were so few left, we non-native Americans, more or less forgot about them. Sadly, history is repeating itself.

  •  I've never more heavily considered an HR... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, bevenro, volleyboy1

    ... than on this diary.  I am not going to do so here.  This diary is taking a sentence out of a movie, not giving it any context, and using it to support your opinion.  You provide a link to an interview with Dror Moreh, the director of "The Gatekeeper", in that interview he says this to his Democracy Now interviewers:

    DROR MOREH: Well, look, I—I have to say that I a little bit feel uncomfortable in the way that you present the things here, because you portray the things as if Israel is the brutal, aggressive all the time, with the Palestinians, that they are like doves. There is reason why the Shin Bet is doing what it’s doing there. And the fact of the matter is that you cannot say—in a way, portray Israel as the aggressive and the Palestinians are the innocent bystander who are always being killed by those aggressive forces. It’s not the case at all, and I think that this is misleading the people that are watching that.
    I agree with Mr. Moreh, you are doing the same thing here.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 05:05:05 PM PST

    •  Did I ever quote Moreh in my diary? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast

      He is the director.  He was never led Shin Bet.  Anyhow here is the full quote:

      Well, we turn now to an explosive new documentary film that features some unlikely and unprecedented criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. One subject of the film says, quote, "We are making the lives of millions unbearable, into prolonged human suffering, [and] it kills me." A different subject of the film says, We’ve become, quote, "a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II."

      AMY GOODMAN: Now, these aren’t the words of Israeli peace activists or even of soldiers who have refused to serve in the Occupied Territories; they’re the words of the former heads of the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret service and the agency responsible for the country’s internal security. And in The Gatekeepers, by Israeli filmmaker Dror Moreh, these five—these six former Shin Bet chiefs are brought together to speak out for the first time ever.

      Did the context change the meaning of the quote I posted in my diary?  Or maybe you think Amy Goodman is full of it.
    •  Here is more context: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast
      AMY GOODMAN: Former Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter. Talk about his response.

      DROR MOREH: Well, look, I—I have to say that I a little bit feel uncomfortable in the way that you present the things here, because you portray the things as if Israel is the brutal, aggressive all the time, with the Palestinians, that they are like doves. There is reason why the Shin Bet is doing what it’s doing there. And the fact of the matter is that you cannot say—in a way, portray Israel as the aggressive and the Palestinians are the innocent bystander who are always being killed by those aggressive forces. It’s not the case at all, and I think that this is misleading the people that are watching that.

      And I think that there is—if there is something that I failed while doing this film, it’s that the whole situation is different shades of gray. There is no really total aggressive person there or aggressive entity towards a very innocent and not violent entity on the other side. It’s both. Both are doing the worst that they can. I think that I can relate to what Abba Eban said once, our former foreign minister. He said that the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I can say that on both sides. Both sides have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

      And this is the whole goal of The Gatekeepers. The Gatekeepers portrays Israeli occupation in the last 45 years and basically says, "Enough of that. It’s not going anywhere. It’s only tactic without strategy. Where do you want to go with this conflict ahead?" and to show that in a way that will only benefits both sides. If you portray only one side as the brutal, aggressive force and the other one as the innocent naive, you are doing wrong to the truth or to the facts on the ground. And I have to say that this is something which my movie tried to do very, very strongly: to portray the situation as it is. The Palestinians are doing terrorist attack. They have right to do, in a way, something which they want to create their own country, their own homeland, and they oppose the aggressive occupation.

      AARON MATÉ: Well, we certainly aren’t here to debate the history with you, but we are trying to portray your film, and your movie has some very powerful statements that should be highlighted. You know, you have Avraham Shalom saying something like—a line like: "[We’ve become] a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II."

      DROR MOREH: Yeah.

      AARON MATÉ: "We have become cruel, to ourselves as well, but mainly to the occupied population, using the excuse of the war against terror."

      DROR MOREH: Yes.

      AARON MATÉ: That’s in your movie, and it’s very powerful.

      DROR MOREH: Absolutely, I’m not—yeah, I’m not saying that it’s not in the movie. Well, I did that movie; believe me, I know every sentence that is inside that movie. What I felt is that when you portray that as the Palestinians are people that are sitting there, you know, and not doing anything, it’s not the reality on the ground. And by that, you have to show both sides, because I think that when you do that, you portray only one side. And I said that before. It’s—you have to be balanced. And this is something that I felt that is not so much here.

      AMY GOODMAN: Well, could you respond to both of these points? One is this powerful statement that Avraham Shalom says, the former head of Shin Bet—

      DROR MOREH: Yeah, yeah.

      AMY GOODMAN: —comparing themselves to the Nazis.

      DROR MOREH: He’s—well, look, I have to say that this sentence that Avraham Shalom said, I—when I was doing the interview, it felt like a physical blow to my stomach when he said that. And I have to say that Avraham Shalom—well, when you see the film, you’ll know what happened in the 300 line when he ordered the execution of two terrorists that were captured alive. I think—

  •  The diary is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too, volleyboy1

    too-cute-by-half with the Israel-Nazi comparison.  This is a blatant violation of site rules.

    HR'd and reported.

  •  Stop HRing, please! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WattleBreakfast

    I've read the diary and comments and think this is one of the more thoughtful discussions about this issue that I've seen on DKos. We have to be able to discuss difficult issues without getting extreme ourselves -- without HRing, without banning or threatening to ban. I really want to watch this documentary now and I and everyone else who watches will be better educated about the issue once they've seen it. That's the best of all outcomes, no?  

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:01:37 PM PST

    •  I really want to see the documentary myself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1

      as I think it will be fascinating to see what the Shin Bet chiefs have to say, and I really hope it helps to sway Israeli public opinion to the left (maybe these past elections offer some hope)

      However, with so much that one can talk about with respect to this documentary, the fact that the diarist felt that it was of paramount importance to lead with the Israel/Nazi-in-the-same-sentence nonsense greatly discredits the discussion.

      Posts like that are posted with an agenda--NOT to educate.

      The documentary, on the other hand, I hope will educate.

    •  There are a number of clips from the ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1, bevenro

      ... documentary available from one of the links at the top of this diary.  If you watch the interview with the director of the film you will see that he is clearly uncomfortable with the tenor of the interviewers, in fact he says as much during the interview - more than once.  To make the point even finer, the director doesn't even think that this is the most "shocking" line in his movie, and the interviewers don't seem to take issue with that statement.

      Having watched the interview it strikes me that the line in question isn't even shown in the interview.  The director does say that the line is in his documentary, and describes his own reaction to the statement.  The only context presented (and it is used in a self-serving manner by the diarist, including in the headline) is that the man who made the comment was a Holocaust survivor.  We don't know the rest of his thought or what prompted the statement.

      To me, the issue with this diary (and the conclusions the diarist is making) is that it is based on a single line from the documentary with no context.  On this site we rail against "the other side" taking our President's comments out of context and building a case from that.  A recent and notable example is "You didn't build that".  The same thing is being done here, however, I feel that the issue involved makes this kind of argument much more dangerous.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 11:50:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've provided as much context as I possibly could (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sophie Amrain

        in the diary and in the comments without stealing his script and publishing it in its entirety on this site.

        I'm really not sure what you want from me.

        •  The issue here, is that you wrote an entire... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          volleyboy1

          ... diary about a single, possibly paraphrased or taken out of context, sentence in a 96 minute documentary.  The Goodman interview doesn't even provide a clip of Avraham Shalom's comment.  From the interview's transcript, here's the actual setup:

          AARON MATÉ: Well, we certainly aren’t here to debate the history with you, but we are trying to portray your film, and your movie has some very powerful statements that should be highlighted. You know, you have Avraham Shalom saying something like—a line like: "[We’ve become] a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II."

          DROR MOREH: Yeah.

          AARON MATÉ: "We have become cruel, to ourselves as well, but mainly to the occupied population, using the excuse of the war against terror."

          DROR MOREH: Yes.

          AARON MATÉ: That’s in your movie, and it’s very powerful.

          DROR MOREH: Absolutely, I’m not—yeah, I’m not saying that it’s not in the movie. Well, I did that movie; believe me, I know every sentence that is inside that movie. What I felt is that when you portray that as the Palestinians are people that are sitting there, you know, and not doing anything, it’s not the reality on the ground. And by that, you have to show both sides, because I think that when you do that, you portray only one side. And I said that before. It’s—you have to be balanced. And this is something that I felt that is not so much here.

          Did you notice that Mate's quote about the Shalom statement starts with "saying something like—a line like"?  

          So here's the deal.  You don't know exactly what the Holocaust survivor said.  You don't know WHY the Holocaust survivor said "something like" the Holocaust survivor was purported to have said because you don't know what the Holocaust survivor was asked.  Nor do you know what the Holocaust survivor said immediately before or after this purported statement.  But you decided none of that made a difference, wrote a diary about it and attributed a definitive statement by the Holocaust survivor in your title.

          And then you bash people for questioning your use of a Holocaust survivor's comment.  And, on top of that, you freaking HR a person (who you should apologize to) in your own diary.  You ask me what I want from you with regard to providing context.  If Pat Buchanan attributed this statement to Shalom would you have run with that?

          Did you read or watch the interview?  I've done both.  I did both before I made my first comment in your diary.  Did you hear the director of the film admonish both Mate and Goodman multiple times during the interview for not being balanced?  Did that make an impression on you?  It did for me.  That's why I questioned the context of the statement, and your use of the statement to draw any conclusions.

          So, we'll let Moreh have the last word (who is the only one of us who actually knows what was said and has SEEN THE MOVIE).

          DROR MOREH: I think that the last elections have proven that the Israeli public is much more smarter than the leaders. I think that—the way that I look at it, Netanyahu wanted to do that. Netanyahu wanted, before the elections, to move towards the extreme right, but the Israeli public said to him very, very clearly, "You cannot do that. You have to go to the center." And by voting 19 members of the Knesset to the new—there is a future group. They told him very clearly, "You are the only candidate now in Israel. There is nobody who—there’s nobody who opposes you. So—but you cannot do that with the far extreme right; you have to go to the center."

          And this is what seems to be the case now. He’s negotiating with this center parties, and I hope that this was what happen. I don’t have any trust in Netanyahu. Netanyahu, for me, is something that is the most dangerous person in terms of the peace and in terms of Israel. But I think that the Israeli public have sent him a very clear message in that election.

          How does that square with the conclusion you made?

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 09:22:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Talk about not providing context (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sophie Amrain

            You cut out his reaction to shalom's comments.  I did provide the full context unlike you with his reaction here:
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            Moreh, said it was a blow to the gut.  So clearly he took the meaning of shalom's statement the same way Mate did.

            Its bizarre you would talk about context the cut out moreh's reaction.

            •  I'm calling BS on your circular logic... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1

              ... this is YOUR diary and you expect the readers to do more work than you with regard to determining the facts you present.

              I've added an HR to your tip jar for this diary.  Two days ago I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Today it is apparent that you simply wanted to create a firestorm.  bevenro was correct.

              I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

              by Hey338Too on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:39:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm pretty sure you are violating HR rules at this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sophie Amrain

                point.  You are HR'ing me now because I made you look silly in a petty argument.

                •  ROTFLMAO... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  volleyboy1

                  Your comment:

                  At least the hyper-pro-Israel crowd doesn't try
                  to hide their support for war crimes anymore.  I guess there is something to be said for honesty... I guess.
                  Says it all.

                  I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                  by Hey338Too on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:31:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Heh... speaking of Violating rules (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too

                  You ummm... might not want to spout off regarding violating rules considering this:

                  ah yes, it's the old ' Hey--a holocaust survivor (5+ / 6-)

                  Recommended by: volleyboy1, BFSkinner, livosh1, JNEREBEL, Hey338Too

                  Hidden by:Obamalover20122, sturunner, MadRuth, edrie, alain2112, WattleBreakfast

                  Considering that you have been sitting in violation of the rule for HR'ing comments in your own diary. Really, if you are going to lecture someone regarding following the rules... You shouldn't violate them yourself.

                  "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                  by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:35:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  In general, Nazi/Israel comparisons only cause (3+ / 0-)

    a mess in I/P, far more heat than light.

    In this case, you've actually written a clear, fair and thoughtful diary on the subject. Congratulations.

    But, of course, this is I/P so there is still a mess. Sorry about your umbrageous guests.

    "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

    by Brecht on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 03:11:14 PM PST

    •  Yes, it seems in every I/P diary somebody (0+ / 0-)

      has to show up and wax about 2500 year old entitlements. Which is of course, if you think about it, utter male-bovine-droppings. The world would not be livable if everybody wanted to go and claim the state their genetic or cultural ancestors lived in 2500 years ago.

      One conclusion would be that we hand over the reins of the US and indeed all of the Americas, to the real natives.

      Claims can only be made by living actual populations. So Israel began as an illegitimate land grab (from millions of Palestinian Arabs, who were living there and got thrown out) when it was founded. I know the justifications, but they do not wash, IMHO. Especially not the ones citing the Tanach as legal document.

      So then Israeli immigrants live (partially) on stolen land, get kids and grandkids etc. Now these kids and grandkids did not steal anything, so they have the right to live there. Very similar to how the situation developed in the US. It started as land grab, and then it became something else. This is how it always goes. But we do not go around and tell the Anglosaxons that they have no right to the UK, because the Picts have the older claim. Or the people of Normannic descent that the land and state belongs to the Anglosaxons, because they have the older history in the UK. Etc.

      So, if a population is living there, they are entitled to live there (goes for Isrealis and Palestinians, obviously). And each population has the right to representation in a state and protection by that state. Government by, of, and for the people. It does not matter, whether 50 years ago somebody outsmarted somebody with respect to founding a state.

      People want the right to self representation - all over the world - and Americans look really funny, when they try to deny such right to particular populations.

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:18:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was really only addressing the specific issue (0+ / 0-)

        of whether someone should be able to make a Nazi/Israel comparison - despite the general rule against doing so in I/P - if the reality of the ongoing news supports it.

        Much of what you say, Sophie, makes sense to me. But most of what I saw in the threads above just looked like an ugly mess to me, so I didn't read deep enough to find  the "wax[ing] about 2500 year old entitlements".

        "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

        by Brecht on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:42:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site